From the start of his second term, the president has endured a cascade of foreign policy crises that often left him looking reactive and uncertain. The Syrian “red line.” The coup in Egypt. Vladimir Putin’s assault on Ukraine. Charges that he was relinquishing America’s leadership role were crystallized by an aide’s famous claim that the president was “leading from behind.”

Story Continued Below

In his State of the Union address, Obama worked to overturn that narrative, casting himself as a prudent steward of the world order , a master of patient diplomacy and a victor over critics who counsel “bluster” and the hasty use of military force.

American leadership, Obama asserted before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, has been crucial to thwarting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, inflicting economic pain on Putin’s Russia, thawing relations with Cuba and averting potential war with Iran.

That is comeuppance, he said, for Republican critics who say the man who declined to bomb Syria or arm the Ukrainians is too timid in the face of foreign adversaries:

“When we make rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military — then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world,” Obama said. “That’s what our enemies want us to do.”

Obama was particularly boastful — cocky, even — about the dismal state of Putin’s economy. “Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength,” Obama said. “Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.”

“That’s how America leads — not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve,” he added.

Obama’s critics have been quick to note that Putin retains his grip on Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and many experts say crashing oil prices and a related plunge in the ruble have done more to quell Russian bravado than U.S. and European sanctions.

Similarly, Obama cast his international coalition against ISIL as a diplomatic effort as much as a military one, contrasting it with the major ground wars launched by his Republican predecessor in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group,” Obama said.

Like his claims about Putin’s Russia, experts say that’s debatable: Obama said the coalition was “stopping ISIL’s advance,” but by many accounts the group continues to acquire territory in Syria and remains potent in Iraq. And, after boasting in his last State of the Union address that “[t]oday, all our troops are out of Iraq,” Obama did not mention that he has since dispatched some 3,000 troops to the country.

Seeking explicit buy-in from a Congress that has often criticized his ISIL policy from the sidelines, Obama issued his most direct call yet for Congress to formally authorize the aerial campaign he began in August. Obama has previously insisted he already has the necessary legal authority to strike ISIL, though on Tuesday night he asked Congress “to show the world that we are united in this mission.”

That won’t be easy: There’s no clear consensus in Congress on the scope and duration of such an authorization, or whether it should rule out U.S. ground troops. The White House has provided little guidance on such options, to the frustration of Republicans and Democrats alike.

Obama had sterner words on Iran, where he warned that congressional meddling could derail nuclear talks that began in late 2013. Republicans in Congress, backed by many Democrats, are set to push legislation imposing new sanctions on Tehran if a nuclear deal isn’t reached by the current deadline of June 30, or if Iran abandons the talks. Obama has said that sanctions would fracture the delicate international coalition pressuring Tehran — “will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails,” as he put it Tuesday, promising to veto new sanctions legislation.

Obama issued a similar vow in last year’s State of the Union. This time, he repeated it with an edge — implying that sanctions backers were, in effect, choosing war.

“The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom,” Obama said.

At a moment of high alarm about terrorism, Obama spent notably little time on the subject. Two weeks after a Paris terror attack linked to Al Qaeda, Obama did not mention the group by name — marking the first time since 2001 that Al Qaeda has not been cited in a State of the Union address.

A president who has sought to move America from what he has called a “permanent war footing” spent more time touting his diplomatic breakthrough with Cuba (“new hope for the future”) and his October climate deal with China (“offering hope”) than he did the fight against radical Islam.

His overall message was clear: A president long buffeted by enemies abroad and critics at home now has the upper hand — over them both.